Live data from Hacker News

Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

devaboone.com

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#121

I struggle to believe that a physician told her to take 5000 IU of vitamin D daily for 5+ years. This is nearly 10x canada's recommended winter time dose for adults under 70. After years of struggling with severe joint pain and mental fog/depression, among other things it was discovered that I had critically low vitamin D. They prescribed the 5000 dose but told me at least 10 times how I should NOT continue this high…

> I struggle to believe that a physician told her to take 5000 IU Believe it. When one of the most trusted vitamin companys (Nature’s Made) sells a 5000 IU single pill dosage that can be found at any drug or grocery store in the US - it nots surprising that people buy and believe 5000 is ok. https://www.naturemade.com/products/nature-made-extra-streng... If 4000 IU is the max dosage anyone should take, it shouldn’t b…

The audacity to believe you know everything about this subject.

Super-high dosages are used in loading protocols before switching to a smaller maintenance dosage.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#122

I struggle to believe that a physician told her to take 5000 IU of vitamin D daily for 5+ years. This is nearly 10x canada's recommended winter time dose for adults under 70. After years of struggling with severe joint pain and mental fog/depression, among other things it was discovered that I had critically low vitamin D. They prescribed the 5000 dose but told me at least 10 times how I should NOT continue this high…

I've been taking 5,000 IU daily for 5 years. Got bloodwork done last month and I was at 63.7ng/mL, so I will cut back now to ~2,000/day especially with summer coming around. 5 years ago I was at 14ng/mL and the supplement seems to have helped my energy levels, gut health and immune system.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#123
I'm a bro-scientist on this subject, and often suggest others supplement with Vit D because, "it probably won’t hurt, and it might help".

While I have generally suggested people take somewhere between 1,000 IU - 4,000 IU daily, I do always suggest people test their blood levels if taking doses in this range because toxicity can very occasionally occur if you're taking doses above 2,000 IU daily. Anything above 5,000 IUs daily and you're almost certainly taking too much.

I think it's worth remembering that in the Northern hemisphere a significant percentage of people have Vit D deficiencies in the winter and about 50% of people have insufficient Vitamin D levels.

Long-term having insufficient Vitamin D levels can increase your risk of cancer, heart disease and various other chronic diseases.

Given we're just coming out of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, if you're not currently supplementing Vit D and you're reading this comment from somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere there's a greater than 50% chance you currently have insufficient levels of Vit D.

Here in the UK the NHS warns against taking more than 4,000 IU of Vit D daily if you're an adult, and generally doses of 1,000 IU - 2,000 IUs are suggested to maintain adequate Vit D levels. I think these are on the high end if I'm honest, but the fact the NHS says this would suggests that 4,000 IUs daily in adults is probably generally tolerable which roughly correlates with the research and personal experimentation I've done on this subject.

Supplementing with 2,000 IU daily is almost never going to cause problems in an adult. Personally I supplement with 4,000 IUs daily in the winter and generally drop this to 2,000 IUs in summer, and I know from testing this keeps my Vit D levels slightly above the recommended 50 ng/mL all year round (although imo 70 ng/ml is a better target). I will note though that I get very little sun exposure so what I take is probably on the higher end of what's needed to maintain healthy levels of Vit D.

I'll also note that typically toxicity won't occur in most people until they reach levels greater than 150ng/ml and I get no where near this despite taking a rather high daily dose for years.

What I'm trying to say here is that evidence does suggest that most people probably should be supplementing with Vit D and not doing so for fear of Vit D toxicity is kinda stupid because unless you're taking ridiculous doses for months on end you're realistically never going to reach toxicity levels.

If you're really worried about Vit D toxicity and do not want to do blood testing, please consider just supplementing with 500 - 1,000 IU / daily. Your risk of toxicity at these levels is probably non-existent, but it should ensure at the very least you never become deficient. In my opinion there's really no good reason not to do this, especially if you're at increased risk of having low Vit D (such as being elderly or having a darker skin ton).

Vit D deficiency is such a big problem though that I think it's crazy we don't do more to encourage more people to supplement with it to be honest.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So those combination vitamin D, and K products are scams?

Not at all. Suboptimal, but far better than taking nothing at all. There are loads of nutrients that technically compete for absorption, but generally it isn’t a concern unless you are taking a huge dose of one. Even then, it’s not like little dog is completely blocked. I’d have to look at the studies the above comment is referencing to determine how much of a concern it actually would be. Even if taking both togethe…

Every packaging label I’ve ever seen clearly claims how many IUs there are.

Let’s say it is 30%, there’s no way potential buyers, when they see ‘1000 IUs Vitamin D’ for example, will realize it actually means ‘700 IUs’.

So I don’t see how your comment makes sense.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#125

This is very confusing! Our skin can make lots of vitamin D. Lots if not more than this case describes. A quick search yields the following: "A whole body exposure to UVB radiation inducing the light pink color of the minimal erythema dose for 15–20 min is able to induce the production of up to 250 μg vitamin D (10,000 IU)"[1] Surely naked homo sapiens got a bigger dose wandering around the highlands of Ethiopia 100,…

> "A whole body exposure to UVB radiation inducing the light pink color of the minimal erythema dose for 15–20 min is able to induce the production of up to 250 μg vitamin D (10,000 IU)"[1] So when you expose someone to light until they get a sunburn, they produce up to 250 ug. 80 ng/ml serum is still equivalent to 400+ ug and that's in the blood alone. The real issue is that over time that elevation caused calcium l…

> current day black Africans would have higher levels than the RDA- they wear shorts and tshirts, so they should still have >50% of prehistoric levels.

Shorts and t-shirts? Em, a rather large amount of modern urban African spends most of their day indoors and wears long-sleeved shirt/pants/long dresses/long robe/hijabs/etc.

I'm not sure why one would expect them to have >50% of prehistoric levels.

The paper you linked to (or really, the metaanalysis it cited) showed low D levels were associated with urbanization, but the lowest concentrations observed in northern African countries and in South Africa with seasons. The highest levels were among those practicing traditional lifestyles.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#126
I am merely a layperson/patient with vague anecdotal experiences, but the notion that Vitamin D is capable of complex unexplored interactions is also my belief.

For me, occasional doctor-prescribed monthly slow release doses, intended to help counter depression and seasonal-affective-disorder, instead prefaced weeks/months of arguably mild but disturbing effects after each dose. That is, weird abdominal sensations/pressure, weight loss, paranoia/hypochondria and feelings of doom, among other things. Accordingly I eventually went through a slew of tests, including every blood test under the sun and an ultrasound - nothing found, and calcium levels not elevated.

It only happened 3 times, and I only got really suspicious on the third occasion, due to the common factor of the Vitamin D dose taken prior - at which point I swiftly and permanently ceased taking it - which was not really enough time to be certain of the cause, but I sure spent some fraught hours researching Vitamin D at the time - which convinced me of it's complex potential, in a similar manner as this article - and ultimately the particular, temporary syndrome I suffered on those occasions (whatever the cause) has not recurred in the years since.

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Suboptimal, but far better than taking nothing at all. There are loads of nutrients that technically compete for absorption, but generally it isn’t a concern unless you are taking a huge dose of one. Even then, it’s not like little dog is completely blocked. I’d have to look at the studies the above comment is referencing to determine how much of a concern it actually would be. Even if taking both togethe…

Every packaging label I’ve ever seen clearly claims how many IUs there are. Let’s say it is 30%, there’s no way potential buyers, when they see ‘1000 IUs Vitamin D’ for example, will realize it actually means ‘700 IUs’. So I don’t see how your comment makes sense.

The whole idea is that some research suggests that vitamin D may be harmful without vitamin K to offset its effects ("so that calcium doesn't build up in the vessels but goes to the bones where it's supposed to be"). That's all there is to it.

No need to discuss absorption. Furthermore, the idea "taking D and K at the exact same time reduces the absorption of D" is unsubstantiated in medical research

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#128
post #19

I struggle to believe that a physician told her to take 5000 IU of vitamin D daily for 5+ years. This is nearly 10x canada's recommended winter time dose for adults under 70. After years of struggling with severe joint pain and mental fog/depression, among other things it was discovered that I had critically low vitamin D. They prescribed the 5000 dose but told me at least 10 times how I should NOT continue this high…

The widely used daily recommended amounts of Vitamin D (600 IU in the US and Canada) are wrong, by a factor of 10, and based on a math typo that no one caught until 2017: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541280/ . I guess many still don't realize this fact. "We call public health authorities to consider designating as the RDA ... around 8000 IU for adults"

I'm reminded of "a lot of engineering is ensuring that you made an even number of sign errors."

(That is, if the original calculations are wrong, but the result usually works out, it might not be caught.)

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#129

I struggle to believe that a physician told her to take 5000 IU of vitamin D daily for 5+ years. This is nearly 10x canada's recommended winter time dose for adults under 70. After years of struggling with severe joint pain and mental fog/depression, among other things it was discovered that I had critically low vitamin D. They prescribed the 5000 dose but told me at least 10 times how I should NOT continue this high…

[deleted]

Re: Story of Vitamin D Toxicity (2022)

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Suboptimal, but far better than taking nothing at all. There are loads of nutrients that technically compete for absorption, but generally it isn’t a concern unless you are taking a huge dose of one. Even then, it’s not like little dog is completely blocked. I’d have to look at the studies the above comment is referencing to determine how much of a concern it actually would be. Even if taking both togethe…

Every packaging label I’ve ever seen clearly claims how many IUs there are. Let’s say it is 30%, there’s no way potential buyers, when they see ‘1000 IUs Vitamin D’ for example, will realize it actually means ‘700 IUs’. So I don’t see how your comment makes sense.

700 instead of 1000 would be “sub optimal” but better than 0. At least that’s what I think the above poster was trying to say.
Post reply on HN